- From: <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:38:59 +0000
- To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> > Yes, I mustn't have been making myself clear when I said that you should
> use
> > the full month name if you can.
> > It's only when a client is stupid enough to insist on a short date (for
> reasons
> > I never understand but figure must have something to do with the physical
> size
>
> That, I would hope, is when you point out to said client that the
> system isn't going to be very userfriendly, that the size of the
> screen is an unknown factor, and that accessibility actually matters.
Sometimes with success, sometimes without.
> Not, but the format
>
> "xx monthname year-with-four-digits"
>
> work in all contexts; written - of course - fully and in the same
> natural language as the document itself.
Yes, that's why that was the suggestion I made to begin with, although I
wouldn't scream at the thought of month dd yyyy.
> If you then want to use the ISO format internally, fine.
And of course the only time HTML uses dates internally they must be in ISO
format. If designing a human-readable but machine targetted system I'd strongly
recommend ISO, but that's even more off-topic than we already are.
However, if
> you MUST use an abbreviated, locale-dependent, format towards the end
> user, then I still suggest dd-mm-yyyy - and, of course, always include
> that, as the OP had done.
If I MUST use and abbreviated locale-dependent format, I'll use which locale I
MUST use.
If I MUST use an abbreviated format I'd use the only locale-independent format
that's available.
Funnily I've been asked by Irish clients (dd/mm/yyyy is the convention here) to
use mm/dd/yyyy. They'd rather think mm/dd/yyyy will bring in more dollars than
dd/mm/yyyy will euros and pounds.
--
Jon Hanna | Toys and books
<http://www.hackcraft.net/> | for hospitals:
| <http://santa.boards.ie/>
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 08:39:03 UTC